I've been thinking this week about the relationship that exists between the fields of Cold War Studies and Cold War Archaeology and, in particular, what each field has to offer the other.
Obviously, this thinking presupposes that the fields indeed have an interrelationship and that they are neither incompatible with, nor subsidiary to, each other. While their apparent compatibility, or any lack thereof, is yet to be tested, it is the notion that Cold War archaeology is, or might become or be describes as the “handmaiden” to Cold War Studies––much the way historical archaeology was once described in terms if its subservient relationship to historical studies that most concerns me.
This notion of the handmaiden, for those among us who are not “Old School”, assumes the subordination of one person or entity to another. The founders of American historical archaeology fought long and hard in the discipline’s early days against the use of this label to describe a presumed subservience of the field to the more deeply-rooted discipline of History. What has emerged are two fields, now deeply entwined in a more or less common scholarly domain, yet not always working or playing well together.
Cold War Studies emerged even before the Cold War was nearing its end as a intellectually challenging and academically promising field that includes various forms of inquiry into the political, economic, social, intellectual, and, of course, military aspects of the Cold War, its historical origins, and potential contemporary consequence. The field has found a strong scholarly footing in the recurring declassification of tons (literally) of formerly secret documents from various countries archives and in the sometimes prosaic biographical accounts of Cold War warriors who have trickled in from the cold.
The main British center for advanced study and research on the Cold War is The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) Cold War Studies Centre. In the United States, the Center for Cold War Studies and International History at UC Santa Barbara (CCWS) and the Harvard Project on Cold War Studies are two leading institutions. Meanwhile, The Journal of Cold War Studies has since 1999 published peer-reviewed articles based on archival research conducted in the former Communist world and in Western countries.
So what can Cold War archaeology contribute to Cold War Studies? There would seem to be a plethora of ways in which archeological evidence might add to what is now a predominantly archival and biographical understanding of the Cold War. For example, the structural remains of airfields, missile silos, docks, industrial sites, radar installations, and underground bunkers may serve to illustrate the technological evolution of military technologies, buildings, and transportation and communication networks that are not otherwise explicated in either archival or biographical data. The archaeological remains of Cold War sites, even if it is only fences, foundations, overgrown roadways, or trash dumps, may help illuminate the use patterns of structures and the land. Even some less-obvious archaeological evidence, such as distinguishing vegetation patterns, might help us understand the ways in which a restricted area was patrolled by guards, or was concealed from public view.
The relationship between Cold War Studies and Cold War archaeology has yet to bloom. It may be that the field will never develop enough influence and authority (in the form of funding, believers, research, and literature) to be more than the “handmaiden” of Cold War Studies or History, but the potential exists for it to be both a incontrovertible contributor to Cold War historical scholarship and a distinct field of academic inquiry in its own right. Time may tell.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Cold War Archaeology – defining the field
Last week, I offered my views about Cold War archaeology as an emerging subfield of historical archaeology. This week, I add a few particulars to that proposal.
In my mind, any attempt to mark out some plausible boundaries to the notion of a Cold War archaeology subfield, it would seem appropriate to consider the Cold War in terms of an episode––that being a significant event that is part of, but distinct from a greater whole––rather than in terms of an era. This idea of the “Cold War era” may indeed be popular in a conventional respect, but lacks the focus necessary to explicitly define a field of inquiry.
It is critical to remember that the “Cold War era” was a period comprised of more than simply a prolonged chapter of nasty US/Soviet relations supported by an arms race. There is more to it than that. As a result of the devastating economic, social, and political effects of World War II, the first few decades of the CW witnessed a range of significant historical events including the collapse of numerous long-standing colonial regimes around world. These events were accompanied by a range of remarkable medical, scientific and technical advances, and various social and educational reforms, yet much of this noteworthy history-making had little or nothing to do with either the core Cold war issues of the nuclear arms race and the unfriendly state of relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. With a few exceptions, these events could be excluded from the scope of Cold War archaeology. In addition, those instances when the “Cold War went hot”, such as during the Korean War or Vietnam, might logically be excluded from Cold War archaeology’s purview.
Leaving these other events and their accompanying historical sites for the scrutiny of historians and archaeologists more deeply interested in them, the field of Cold War archaeology might find its greatest focus by defining itself through the twin issues of capitalist/communist relations and the nuclear arms race. This characterization would help situate such historic spaces and places as the Berlin Wall, Cheyenne Mountain, Spadeadam Range, Rocky Flats, Greenham Common, Semipalatinsk, and the Nevada Test Site, along with hundreds of other significant, if somewhat less widely known, Cold War sites as the field’s intellectual domain.
Once a preponderance of the world’s Cold War sites have been cataloged, the task before archaeologists would likely be to decide which merit archaeological study and which do not. That is, what do we know, and what is yet to be learned. This decision, however, may very well be made on behalf of the field by others, as a considerable number of former Cold War sites around the world are even now being taken out of operation and demolished or converted to other uses. As Wayne Cocroft of English Heritage reminds us, “We have a brief opportunity to understand and record what Top Secret sites were once used for before the evidence is lost.” Site owners may seek to have their sites better understood and even preserved, but others may not. In either case, Cold War archaeology in the United States may very well begin its life operating in a rescue archaeology mode.
However it may be that the field of Cold War archaeology comes to fruition, there is a range of paradigms, methods, and theories that might be applied to the field’s practice. In my particular case, methods of ethnoarchaeology have proven particularly valuable, but various other approaches, such as systems theory, agency theory, gender, and historical processualism, are apt to provide critical keys to our understanding of the Cold War. In that regard, John Schofield and Mike Anderton’s paper “The queer archaeology of Green Gate: interpreting contested space at Greenham Common Airbase” (World Archaeology 32 (2), 236-51) serves as a cutting-edge example of that sort of critical work.
Ultimately, any attempt at defining the field of Cold War archaeology is certain to be a lengthy, evolving, and perhaps even controversial, process that will require the scrutiny, wisdom, and intellectual commitment of more than just this author, and perhaps this blog can serve as a forum for facilitating the process.
In my mind, any attempt to mark out some plausible boundaries to the notion of a Cold War archaeology subfield, it would seem appropriate to consider the Cold War in terms of an episode––that being a significant event that is part of, but distinct from a greater whole––rather than in terms of an era. This idea of the “Cold War era” may indeed be popular in a conventional respect, but lacks the focus necessary to explicitly define a field of inquiry.
It is critical to remember that the “Cold War era” was a period comprised of more than simply a prolonged chapter of nasty US/Soviet relations supported by an arms race. There is more to it than that. As a result of the devastating economic, social, and political effects of World War II, the first few decades of the CW witnessed a range of significant historical events including the collapse of numerous long-standing colonial regimes around world. These events were accompanied by a range of remarkable medical, scientific and technical advances, and various social and educational reforms, yet much of this noteworthy history-making had little or nothing to do with either the core Cold war issues of the nuclear arms race and the unfriendly state of relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. With a few exceptions, these events could be excluded from the scope of Cold War archaeology. In addition, those instances when the “Cold War went hot”, such as during the Korean War or Vietnam, might logically be excluded from Cold War archaeology’s purview.
Leaving these other events and their accompanying historical sites for the scrutiny of historians and archaeologists more deeply interested in them, the field of Cold War archaeology might find its greatest focus by defining itself through the twin issues of capitalist/communist relations and the nuclear arms race. This characterization would help situate such historic spaces and places as the Berlin Wall, Cheyenne Mountain, Spadeadam Range, Rocky Flats, Greenham Common, Semipalatinsk, and the Nevada Test Site, along with hundreds of other significant, if somewhat less widely known, Cold War sites as the field’s intellectual domain.
Once a preponderance of the world’s Cold War sites have been cataloged, the task before archaeologists would likely be to decide which merit archaeological study and which do not. That is, what do we know, and what is yet to be learned. This decision, however, may very well be made on behalf of the field by others, as a considerable number of former Cold War sites around the world are even now being taken out of operation and demolished or converted to other uses. As Wayne Cocroft of English Heritage reminds us, “We have a brief opportunity to understand and record what Top Secret sites were once used for before the evidence is lost.” Site owners may seek to have their sites better understood and even preserved, but others may not. In either case, Cold War archaeology in the United States may very well begin its life operating in a rescue archaeology mode.
However it may be that the field of Cold War archaeology comes to fruition, there is a range of paradigms, methods, and theories that might be applied to the field’s practice. In my particular case, methods of ethnoarchaeology have proven particularly valuable, but various other approaches, such as systems theory, agency theory, gender, and historical processualism, are apt to provide critical keys to our understanding of the Cold War. In that regard, John Schofield and Mike Anderton’s paper “The queer archaeology of Green Gate: interpreting contested space at Greenham Common Airbase” (World Archaeology 32 (2), 236-51) serves as a cutting-edge example of that sort of critical work.
Ultimately, any attempt at defining the field of Cold War archaeology is certain to be a lengthy, evolving, and perhaps even controversial, process that will require the scrutiny, wisdom, and intellectual commitment of more than just this author, and perhaps this blog can serve as a forum for facilitating the process.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Cold War Archaeology – an emerging archaeological subfield
If there is anything that archaeologists seem to almost universally cringe at, it is the declaration of a new subfield, or in this case, a new sub-subfield.
As it is, archaeology already has a subfield of historical archaeology, which manages to nicely encompass all sorts of sub-specialities and topics in all kinds of spaces and places– industrial archaeology, medieval archaeology, and Islamic archaeology, to list only a few. So why have I created a blog dedicated to discussions related to Cold War Archaeology?
The rationale behind this madness lies my desire to have others both inside and outside the field of historical archaeology recognize the tremendous potential that I believe can come from studying the material culture and physical legacies (artifacts and structures) left in the United States and around the globe by the Cold War.
The end of the Cold War is now nearly twenty years behind us–if you use the Fall of the Berlin Wall as a marker. Although this is far from the 50 years that historic preservationists commonly use as a marker for consideration of historic properties, the actual start of the Cold War –if one uses the Fall of the Iron Curtain as a marker–is now more than 60 years behind us. This means that each and every day more sites of Cold War activity are likely to roll past the 50 year mark that seems necessary to merit these kinds of studies of our recent past. Whether we wait for the official 50 year sanction or just pick an era or event, each day the enigmas of the past are more open than ever to historical inquiry.
In the Americas, we seem to lag behind the work of our British colleagues like Bob Clarke, Nick McCamley and Wayne Cocroft, who have already begun to put greater shape the field with publications like Four Minute Warning – Britain's Cold War, Secret Cold War Nuclear Bunkers and The Cold War: Building for Confrontation. Meanwhile, the UK's English Heritage supports a strong Cold War program of study into airfields, civil defense structures, nuclear research centers and the like. I believe it is time for Americanist historical archaeology to join the party.
To be sure, the archaeology of the Cold War in the United States is an emerging field fraught with questions and concerns. What, for example, counts as a Cold War artifact or structure? What does learning more about the militaristic culture of the Cold War add to our knowledge of humanity? What do we do with the knowledge we collect once we've collected it? What should we save for future generations and what should we let fall to ruin or beneath the bulldozer's blade? What's at stake and why should anyone care about any of this? We won't know until we start.
With yours and the archaeology community's help, it is these, and dozens of other questions and issues, that I hope to work out in the coming months on this blog. Your contributions and comments are welcome.
As it is, archaeology already has a subfield of historical archaeology, which manages to nicely encompass all sorts of sub-specialities and topics in all kinds of spaces and places– industrial archaeology, medieval archaeology, and Islamic archaeology, to list only a few. So why have I created a blog dedicated to discussions related to Cold War Archaeology?
The rationale behind this madness lies my desire to have others both inside and outside the field of historical archaeology recognize the tremendous potential that I believe can come from studying the material culture and physical legacies (artifacts and structures) left in the United States and around the globe by the Cold War.
The end of the Cold War is now nearly twenty years behind us–if you use the Fall of the Berlin Wall as a marker. Although this is far from the 50 years that historic preservationists commonly use as a marker for consideration of historic properties, the actual start of the Cold War –if one uses the Fall of the Iron Curtain as a marker–is now more than 60 years behind us. This means that each and every day more sites of Cold War activity are likely to roll past the 50 year mark that seems necessary to merit these kinds of studies of our recent past. Whether we wait for the official 50 year sanction or just pick an era or event, each day the enigmas of the past are more open than ever to historical inquiry.
In the Americas, we seem to lag behind the work of our British colleagues like Bob Clarke, Nick McCamley and Wayne Cocroft, who have already begun to put greater shape the field with publications like Four Minute Warning – Britain's Cold War, Secret Cold War Nuclear Bunkers and The Cold War: Building for Confrontation. Meanwhile, the UK's English Heritage supports a strong Cold War program of study into airfields, civil defense structures, nuclear research centers and the like. I believe it is time for Americanist historical archaeology to join the party.
To be sure, the archaeology of the Cold War in the United States is an emerging field fraught with questions and concerns. What, for example, counts as a Cold War artifact or structure? What does learning more about the militaristic culture of the Cold War add to our knowledge of humanity? What do we do with the knowledge we collect once we've collected it? What should we save for future generations and what should we let fall to ruin or beneath the bulldozer's blade? What's at stake and why should anyone care about any of this? We won't know until we start.
With yours and the archaeology community's help, it is these, and dozens of other questions and issues, that I hope to work out in the coming months on this blog. Your contributions and comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)